Don't blame God for this. He- actually, not a "he"- is not to be blamed.
Thank God for the Second Amendment 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 https://t.co/M1tFRviWHq
After 35 people were gunned down in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur in 1996, Australia
essentially banned assault rifles and many other semiautomatic rifles, as well as shotguns. They imposed mandatory gun buybacks that took as many as one in three privately held guns out of circulation, and, according to some estimates, melted down as many as one million guns. They also imposed new registration requirements and restrictions on gun purchases.
Thereafter, mass murders by firearm, aside from domestic situations, were almost unknown in Australia until 15 individuals were slaughtered at Bondi Beach in Sydney on December 14. In the USA, they are common, whatever the definition of mass shooting. And so it is notable, though regrettably no longer shocking, that
There were almost 47,000 firearms-related deaths in the
United States in 2023, the most recent year with available data from Pew
Research Center, for an average rate of 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
Of those, about 18,000 were gun-related homicides, for a
rate of 5.6 gun murders per 100,000 people that year.
During a comparable period (July 2023 through June 2024)
Australia saw only 31 gun-related murders, a homicide rate of 0.09 gun murders
per 100,000 people, according to data from the Australian Institute of
Criminology.
And so, unburdened by a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of every resident to own a musket he can take upon joining a no-existent militia, the government of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is encouraging stricter gun control measures. The nation's officials evidently are determined to prevent Australia from creating the killing fields we have in the USA. A merciful God would approve.
The good news from Secretary of State Marco Rubio's news conference today is a response which bore no resemblance to those typically seen from President Trump nor Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. There was no blame placed on Joe Biden, imaginary, domestic Communists or Socialists, "fake news," nor the "Democrat," or even Democratic, Party. The bad news is that his vocabulary knowledge is deficient, a minor deficiency. (Comma day!) And so we had
Q: By any metric, the Israelis are flouting the ceasefire Trump negotiated by killing an average of 2 children a day, not allowing aid into Gaza. How long can the Israelis be allowed to show such disrespect to President Trump?
.... all the hostages were released and we have relative piece now for the most part despite the things you're pointing to. That was very difficult. But this is not easy. Peace is a verb, it's an action, it's not a sentiment.
Actually, peace is not a verb and not an action, but a state or period. But given that he serves an authoritarian with grandiose delusion, that's trivial. H
He continued
Every single day will bring challenges. Every single day. We've also had incidents where for example, the last couple of weeks, where Hamas elements emerged from a tunnel, attached an explosive device inside a vehicle, and injured and almost killed Israeli soldiers.
We still have and see every single day, Hamas taking steps to strengthen themselves within those places in Gaza they still control. We saw early on the atrocities they were committing in the streets against people. They ere trying to show people how strong they were.
This highlights how, with both sides periodically breaking the ceasefire, the Trump-inspired deal is not a peace deal but merely a ceasefire, and an imperfect, fragile one at that. In an article, written soon after the 10/7/23 Hamas attack, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point noted
both before and after the so-called “Shalit deal” in which
Israel released over 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners in exchange for one
Israeli soldier captured in Gaza in 2006—Gilad Shalit—Hamas has ceaselessly
engaged in kidnappings and attempted kidnappings in hopes of gaining a valuable
bargaining chip to use in future negotiations with Israel.
One of those 1,000+ prisoners released included Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind 26 months ago of the most successful terrorist attack upon Israel in its nation's history.
The September agreement which, at least temporarily, ended the Hamas-Israel war included release of all prisoners held by the butchers of Gaza, which slashed the ability of Hamas to blackmail Israel. Well: good, or great. Hamas has been, as it was before the deal, largely, though not totally emasculated. As part of Trump's 21-point peace plan, the group is to disarm. Good luck with that.
Moreover, a peaceful and just accommodation of "Palestinians"- presumably a Palestinian state- is no closer than it has been for several years. The famine was precipitated by Israeli warfare but encouraged by the Trump Administration, which replaced the United Nations and its partner organizations with the largely ineffectual private Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Though not genocide, it was an active effort to curry favor with private interests at the expense of human life.
The contempt for human life echoed a major theme of this regime, such as the Secretary of State's stubborn refusal to back down from his enthusiasm for the elimination of USAID, which has killed hundreds of thousands of individuals abroad, with the clock running. Hopefully, at some point Rubio will realize that reinforcing and deepening human suffering is a major objective of President Trump.
More importantly, we can wish that none of the nearly 2,000 prisoners held by Tel Aviv since before 10/7/2023 becomes the instigator of a major terrorist attack, such as the one led by the late Yahya Sinwar. I don't like Israel's odds.
On Wednesday, 12/17/25, former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door interview
that his team of investigators
“developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that President Donald Trump had
criminally conspired to over the results of the 2020 election, according to
portions of his opening statement obtained by The Associated Press.
Smith also said investigators had accrued “powerful
evidence” Trump broke the law by hoarding classified documents from his first
term as president at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and by
obstructing government efforts to recover the records.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to
President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in
the 2024 election,” Smith said. “We took actions based on what the facts and
the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a
prosecutor.”
He said that if asked whether he would “prosecute a former
president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether
the president was a Republican or Democrat.”
The answer to the slick, disingenuous question from the tweeter is: because committee chairperson Jim Jordan subpoenaed Smith before he had a chance to appear in public. Thus,
The deposition before the House Judiciary Committee gave
lawmakers of both parties their first chance, albeit in private, to question
Smith about a pair of investigations into Trump that resulted in
since-abandoned criminal charges between the Republican president’s first and
second terms in office. Smith was subpoenaed by the Republican-led committee
this month to provide testimony and documents as part of a GOP investigation
into the Trump inquiries during the administration of Democratic President Joe
Biden.
The former special counsel cooperated with the congressional
demand, though his lawyers noted that he had been volunteered more than a month
before the subpoena was issued to answer questions publicly before the
committee — an overture they said was rebuffed by Republicans. Trump had told
reporters that he supported the idea of an open hearing.
In a statement earlier this month, Smith attorney Peter Koski had issued a statement reading
Nearly six weeks ago Jack offered to voluntarily appear
before the House Judiciary committee in an open hearing to answer any questions
lawmakers have about his investigation into President Trump’s alleged efforts
to unlawfully overturn the election results and retention of classified
documents. We are disappointed that offer was rejected, and that
the American people will be denied the opportunity to hear directly from Jack
on these topics.
That part about Trump telling reporters that he supported the idea of an open hearing comes with a huge "however." As explained beginning at 3:56 of the video below, Donald Trump (both as 2024 candidate and as President), has urged Judge Aileen Cannon not to permit release of Volume 2- the stolen documents matter- of the Smith report.
.
The point is, as John Oliver would put it, that the former special counsel wants as much information as legally possible to reach the public. Prominent House Republicans and President Trump will do what they can to prevent it. It's a wise move for political preservation.
accused several Democratic lawmakers of “seditious
behavior,” calling for them to “be arrested and put on trial” for behavior
that, he said, could be “punishable by death.”
The lawmakers, many of whom are veterans, had posted a video
Tuesday telling military and intelligence officers to "refuse illegal
orders."
“It’s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each
one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their
words cannot be allowed to stand — We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An
example MUST BE SET,” the president wrote in one Truth Social post Thursday
morning, linking to an article about the video from the Washington Examiner.
“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their
words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM
UP???” Trump wrote in another post.
In a third, he wrote: "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable
by DEATH!"
Trump also reposted multiple posts from other Truth Social
users about the video, including one that said, “Hang them George Washington
would.”
The lawmakers in the video, which Michigan Sen. Elissa
Slotkin posted Tuesday, are all military veterans and former intelligence
officials who spoke directly to members of the military and intelligence
community.
sought to clarify that he was "not threatening
death" against Democratic lawmakers who released a video urging military
members to refuse unlawful commands.
His remarks to Fox News on Friday came after bipartisan
condemnation of Trump's earlier social media post accusing the Democrats of
"seditious behaviour, punishable by death"...
Following his social media posts, Trump told Fox News in a
radio interview on Friday: "I'm not threatening death, but I think they're
in serious trouble."
"If you look at sedition", Trump continued,
"that's a form of, a very strong form of being a traitor. It's a terrible
thing to say, I must tell you."
"Cleanup on aisle six" so
Following his social media posts, Trump told Fox News in a radio interview on Friday: "I'm not threatening death, but I think they're in serious trouble."
"If you look at sedition", Trump continued, "that's a form of, a very strong form of being a traitor. It's a terrible thing to say, I must tell you."
O.K., so the President of the United States of America recommended for only 24 hours, give or take, that six members of the United States Congress be hanged. The next day, feeling a surge of compassion, he merely recommended they be tried for sedition, which carries a penalty of fines and a prison sentence of up to 20 years for a civilian and the death penalty for active-duty military members.
But Republicans and conservatives are warming up to blame Democrats for the civil insurrection likely during Donald Trump's second term. Trump says "seditious behavior, punishable by death, James Carville muses aloud "but I just wonder if deep down inside, somebody can't do some sort of intervention. For one Trump supporter, this means Carville "is hoping someone can 'end their suffering'" (quote marks added by the tweeter).
James Carville’s Sick World Is Disintegrating: "I wouldn’t piss down Trump’s God damn throat if his heart was on fire." Think that’s bad? One voice in millions of deranged Dems losing their minds. He’s hoping someone can “end their suffering.” WTH? Encouraging an assassination? pic.twitter.com/JYQRcZcTmy
No intervention or anything remotely similar is coming. We learned Thursday from Chief of Staff Susie Wiles that the President believes "there's nothing he can't do, nothing, zero."
And he has had good reason to believe that since at least July 1, 2024, when the Supreme Court ruled that Trump, as the ACLU put it, is "presumptively immune from criminal liability for his official acts and is absolutely immune for some 'core' of them." There is virtually nothing Donald can't get away with, and "virtually" is headed out of town. There is no one from inside the house- the White House- who will question him.
So if Donald Trump calls for the execution of political enemies, there is little downside for him. And one of the major upsides is that if civil insurrection ensues, he can blame it on Democrat. As we can see from the tweet above, his disciples will be only so happy to oblige him in his authoritarian fantasy.
On Sunday, a tweeter on X with more than 189,000 followers commented
All I have seen is people being shocked and saddened by Rob Reiner's murder. You will always get some lunatic posting but I haven't seen one person on the right say something nasty.
This is a tragedy. He was a massively talented man.
On Tuesday, after he was criticized for "pretending" those conservatives "don't exist to protect your feelings," the tweeter responded "What are you talking about? Since last night I have seen a couple of stupid posts but the vast majority have been respectful. Now do the Charlie Kirk murder."
Unfortunately, he spoke a little too soon
Regardless of how you felt about Rob Reiner, this is inappropriate and disrespectful discourse about a man who was just brutally murdered. I guess my elected GOP colleagues, the VP, and White House staff will just ignore it because they’re afraid? I challenge anyone to defend it. pic.twitter.com/j3dvzRxLQJ
When Charlie Kirk was murdered, Rob Reiner was asked by Piers Morgan "what was your immediate reaction?" The actor turned director and producer replied
Well, horror. Absolute horror. And I unfortunately saw the video of it and it's beyond belief. What happened to him. And that could never happen to everybody. I don't care what your political beliefs are, that's not acceptable. That's not a solution to solving problems and I felt, like what his wife said at the service, at the memorial they had, was exactly right, totally. And I believe- I'm Jewish but I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I believe in doing to others. I believe in forgiveness and what she said to me was beautiful and absolutely she forgave his assassin and I think that's, that is admirable.
I would have added a point and kept a couple out, and "I believe in doing to others" was inartful. However, the argument was sensitive and generous and its thrust, spot-on: "I don't care what your political beliefs are, that's not acceptable. That's not a solution to solving problems...."
Steve M. lists numerous comments from Trump supporters on the Fox News and Breitbart websites who "pat themselves on the back for not being haters while.... being haters." I've similarly been bombarded on my X timeline by MAGAts with no sense of irony. They blame the left for allegedly "celebrating" (in the word of a few) Charlie Kirk's murder and blaming the right for condoning the murders of Rob Reiner and his wife. Then they themselves admit not a whiff of regret about the latter crime.
Giving credit where credit is due, US Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Mike Lawler of suburban new York also criticized the President for his classless and cruel remark on Truth Social. Surely, there will be many more.
Surely, I'm joking. Although events have proven then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton correct- though injudicious- in realizing half of Trump's supporters should be put into a "basket of deplorables," less blame should go to the President's fans than to prominent Republicans, especially members of Congress who remain silent and Donald himself.
Among random liberals and progressives, there were very few individuals who even with the anonymity of social media expressed pleasure at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, whatever his hostile views toward the LGBTQ+ community and black women. There were even very few who pointed out the irony that he was an opponent of gun safety laws.
That can be contrasted with the views of Trump supporters toward this past weekend's murders in Los Angeles. Even if their response were far more empathetic , however, that would not make a hill of beans difference without condemnation from Republicans on Capitol Hill. More than any, they are the real deplorables.
On November 16, 2023, Representative Ro Khanna appeared onMeet the Press, hosted by NBC News' Kristen Welker. The California congressman and Republican Thomas Massie were the sponsors of, and were heavily invested in, the House bill which purportedly would force the Justice Department to release all of the files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein.
At that point, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene had joined Massie, Representative Nancy Mace, and Representative Lauren Boebert as the few GOP Representatives willing to buck the White House and endorse the Massie-Khanna initiative, although, as Khanna told Welker, he was hoping for at least 40 Republicans overall to jump on board.
So the NBC personality asked the Californian "Your joint bill with Thomas Massie is going to come to a vote on the House floor. It's expected to this week. Do you think you have enough votes for it to pass?" Massie responded "We do, and there's nothing I have been prouder of or more meaningful than this work. The credit goes to the survivors."
If this was his proudest moment, he set the bar very low. The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act (with only one "no" vote), the Senate followed suit, and three days after the Meet the Press interview The Washington Post reported that President Donald J. Trump had announced
that he has signed a bill directing the Justice Department
to release the Epstein files, documents related to the sprawling
sex-trafficking investigation into the onetime powerful financier that are
fervently sought by Trump’s political opponents and members of his political
base.
After Trump’s announcement, made in a social media post, the
Justice Department will have 30 days to release all unclassified documents
about Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in
2019 and died in an apparent suicide while in federal custody.
At that point, waiting thirty days was no big deal, and that period is almost over as of today, December 14, 2025. However
despite Trump’s signature, there are many reasons to doubt
that a bulk release of the files is imminent — the legislation calling for the
release of the files includes major loopholes, and the Justice Department has
said little about its plans….
What Congress is “legally entitled to” is a more complicated
question than the rhetoric from Capitol Hill might imply.
The legislation that Trump and Congress agreed to pass gives
the Justice Department a few exceptions under which it can refuse to release
material. Among them: if release “would jeopardize an active federal
investigation or ongoing prosecution.”
On Friday, Trump ordered Bondi to launch a federal
investigation related to Epstein — this one aimed at his ties to several
prominent Democrats….
That new investigation could become a reason for the Justice
Department to block release of many files. Bondi and her deputies have
previously said they cannot release information about active investigations.
Other information could be covered by grand jury secrecy
rules. The bill does not explicitly waive those.
The Justice Department has also said many of the files
cannot be released because they contain sensitive victim information and
pornographic material. The legislation contains another exception allowing the
Justice Department to withhold material that “would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or “depicts or contains child sexual
abuse.”
Nonetheless, Khanna has taken us for idiots. As The Guardian noted
a warning for those in the Trump administration who may find
themselves pressed to withhold information: comply or face the consequences.
“Now, it’s federal law for those documents to be released,
and if the justice officials don’t release it, they will be prosecuted, and
they … could be prosecuted in a future administration,” Khanna told the
Guardian on Wednesday evening, shortly before Trump put his signature on a bill
intended to reveal the truth about what he spent weeks calling a “Democrat
hoax”.
“The career officials [that] are making these
decisions have to think that they’re going to be subject to future contempt of
Congress or criminal prosecution, and they’re taking a huge risk … if they
violate that, given that administrations change,” the California lawmaker added.
Oh my gosh, they're quaking in their boots, they are. We are reminded that in Barack Obama's first term, the President
made it clear that we don’t torture now — but he’s done very
little to ensure that we won’t do it again in the future.
The Justice Department’s Thursday announcement that it has
closed its investigation into all torture-related actions save two particularly
gruesome fatalities was a poignant reminder of that inaction.
Obama has renounced torture. He has issued a new executive
order defining acceptable interrogation techniques. He has reasserted the
illegality of many of the techniques used in American prisons around the world
during the first few years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But he has also repeatedly expressed his desire to “look
forward instead of looking backward.” As a result, there has yet to be any
accountability for the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration. And none
appears forthcoming.
And without accountability — without either criminal
prosecutions or some sort of official national reckoning of what took place —
there’s no reason to think that the next time a perceived emergency comes up,
some other president or vice president will not decide to torture again.
President Trump has not decided to have anyone tortured- not yet, anyway- but the expansion the power of the Executive branch in his Administration has grown beyond what was expected by even those who long ago warned that he is a fascist. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, he of the "look expected instead of looking backward," remains not only Democrats' most popular politician, but enormously popular in the mainstream media, and in the media generally.
So those career officials Representative Khanna is warning need not fear having to appear before bar of justice in the next presidential administration or at any time. In the very unlikely event they are held accountable, Donald Trump and the American people will little notice, and care less. Even Khanna's admonition itself is telling, being directed not against President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, or even Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, but against "career officials." That's quite a bit down the chain of command.
Evidently, Trump has the least to worry about because we learned in July that
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Attorney
General Pam Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche informed President Donald Trump
in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on
Jeffrey Epstein that the Department of Justice and the FBI reviewed.
The officials told Trump of their plan not to release any
additional documents, the report says, because the material contained child
pornography and the personal information of victims.
Here is a safe guess: the child pornography and/or the personal information of victims were not mutually exclusive of the name "Trump."
Now they are, thanks to the FBI's work on behalf of Bondi and Trump. As is probably obvious to Representatives Khanna and Massie, the full, unadulterated Epstein files will not be released even if the Justice Department complies with the law as written. On a positive note, we will know whether the Administration has chosen to be fully transparent or instead hide behind issues of national security, current investigations, or claimed concern for victims. If after release, there is a deep and widespread, fully bipartisan call for President Trump's resignation, we will have seen much of what had been hidden.. If not, we've been had.
In a law class (but not in law school) a few decades ago, the law professor periodically would pose to my class a yes/no question and ask for a response. Before he got one, he would answer it himself: "it depends."
And so it was that Bill Maher on his podcast asked Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks "if you had to live in the Middle East, so, tomorrow, where would you live?" He mentioned several cities and countries, Pakistan, Karachi, Cairo, Amman/Jordan, Beirut/Lebanon. Syria, Tel Aviv, West Bank/Ramallah, even name-checking the Houthis. He added "Where would you live/ What city would you live in? Where would you be comfortable- in that dress?
Bill Maher SNAPS at Ana Kasparian after she blames “Islam on whitey.”
MAHER: “If you had to live in the Middle East. Any city. Where would you live where you’d be comfortable in that dress?”
ANA: “I’m sure I would not be comfortable in this dress in any of the various Middle… pic.twitter.com/RyeqrYUkyN
Kasparian would have flunked Professor Rose's class. Instead of defaulting to blaming USA policy on the Middle East, she should have replied "it depends." (The complete discussion of the topic, according to this blogger, is below.)
A rudimentary search for information regarding clothing permissible in the Middle East reveals a confusing array of laws and rules. What can be worn depends upon the country, the sex/gender of the individual, and, to a lesser extent, circumstances. There is no "one size fits all," especially because the government of each nation determines its own regulations. Regrettably, the clearest explanation, and an objective one, comes via artificial intelligence, Google's Gemini:
A woman can wear a dress in nearly all Muslim countries, but
the style and modesty required vary greatly, from Western-style dresses in
fashion-forward cities like Dubai or Istanbul to modest, loose dresses in more
conservative areas, with countries like Turkey, UAE, Qatar, and Central Asian
nations being generally relaxed, while places like Saudi Arabia (which recently
relaxed mandatory abayas) and Iran still have strong cultural expectations for
covering shoulders and knees.
Kasparian could have explained that whether she'd be comfortable in a Middle Eastern country wearing her dress depended on several factors. But of course she didn't.
She didn't do so because she would be acknowledging something the left is loathe to concede. Islam is different than Christianity or Judaism, the other two major monotheistic religions. And although Jewish extremism and Christian extremism present their own particular issues at times and places, in the modern world, Islamism represents both a broader and more serious problem.
Imagine someone being asked whether a normal dress- not even one especially revealing could be worn in Israel, currently being governed by a coalition of the ultra Orthodox; in the USA, in which the base of the governing party is composed of evangelical Christians; or in the white supremacist nation of Russia. The woman would be incredulous that even such a question would be asked.
But being unable to dress as one wishes without threat of punishment is widely, though not universally, prevalent in Muslim countries of the Middle East. And it could not be admitted to Bill Maher by a fairly prominent individual of the left. (Neither, truthfully, is it admitted by most centrists and, yes, conservatives.)
Clothing can be a complicated issue. Nuclear weapons not so much, thus this hypothetical is at least as telling:
MAHER: “Well, they have nuclear weapons, which they don’t use. If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, how many seconds would it take before they used it on Israel?”
ANA: “I don’t know.”
MAHER: “Three. Three’s the answer. Three seconds.”
ANA: “How do you know that, Bill? Come on.”
MAHER: “Because it’s in their charter.”
"I don't know?" A living, breathing human being, co-host of The Young Turks podcast, with 6.7 million subscribers, doesn't know whether Hamas would launch a nuclear weapon at Israel if they had one.
That can't be stupidity or naivete. No one can be that stupid or naive. There is a glaring absence of honesty in political discourse in this country, and failure to recognize the danger of radical and militant Islamism is one of the most dangerous.
ANA: “You wanna get exhilarated right now? I can exhilarate
you.”
MAHER: “I know you’re gonna say genocide, and I’m gonna say,
well, you don’t know what the word means… Hamas is the bad guy. If you don’t
get that, you don’t get much.”
ANA: “What Hamas did on October 7th was disgusting killing.”
MAHER: “Well, that’s the easiest thing in the world to say…
If you hate oppression… Hundreds of millions of women have basically no freedom
in the Muslim world.”
ANA: “So we should slaughter them instead, which is what’s
been happening.”
MAHER: “Well, you should prosecute a war to the end. That
does involve slaughter in every war.”
ANA: “Civilians get killed in wars.”
MAHER: “Especially when you hide behind them.”
ANA: “But when 83%, according to the IDF’s own data… 83% of
the people that they’ve killed are civilians—”
MAHER: “Because they hide behind them.”
ANA: “But Bill, do you understand that by killing so many
civilians, they are essentially multiplying extremism.”
MAHER: “I do understand that. Do you understand that there’s
very often in the world two very bad choices… You don’t have a good choice. You
have the bad choice and the even worse choice.”
ANA: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Bill. They have nuclear
weapons.”
MAHER: “Well, they have nuclear weapons, which they don’t
use. If Hamas had a nuclear weapon, how many seconds would it take before they
used it on Israel?”
ANA: “I don’t know.”
MAHER: “Three. Three’s the answer. Three seconds.”
ANA: “How do you know that, Bill? Come on.”
MAHER: “Because it’s in their charter.”
ANA: “You have a difficult time at least acknowledging the
atrocities that have been committed against innocent civilians in Gaza.”
MAHER: “Well, it depends on what you call an atrocity. All
wars are going to have atrocities… During the Civil War, a lot of people would
say, especially in the South, that Sherman did not have to burn Atlanta quite
as badly as he did. I mean, we were pretty brutal. But would you also then just
say, well, we don’t know who the good guys were in that war? No, I think it was
the North.”
ANA: “I think much of the problems we have in the Middle
East are due to the enabling of this expansion. Look, it’s an expansionist
policy.”
MAHER: “They’ve never been trying to expand.”
ANA: “They’re trying to annex the West Bank right now. And
Lebanon—southern Lebanon—and Syria, which they’ve succeeded in.”
MAHER: “Excuse me, these are all places that they were
attacked from. When they became a country in 1947, they said, ‘Okay, we will
accept half a loaf.’ They had as much right to that land as anybody. There was
a continual presence there since 1000 BC, when King David had a kingdom.”
ANA: “I don’t care about that at all.”
MAHER: “But it’s relevant!”
(MAHER AND ANA TALK OVER EACH OTHER)
MAHER: “You’re calling them colonizers. They’re not
colonizers.”
ANA: “They’re expanding, and they’re annexing land. That’s
what colonizers do.”
